Should the General Assembly vote to receive the Minority Report, it would not be clear what we are actually recommending to our churches. In fact, the message would be inherently contradictory. The Minority Report is offered as a supplement to the Committee Report, affirming that “the majority has already done significant, able work with which we agree.” Yet, the Committee Report explicitly does not agree with the findings of the MR, particularly in its “discussion of identity, its discussion of the church, and its exegesis of Scripture.” It would thus be a logical contradiction to approve the Minority Report.

As someone who has interacted with proponents and critics of Insider Movements (aka IM, C5 and other names) for over 15 years, I am sometimes asked my opinion of the reports of the PCA’s Study Committee on Insider Movements (SCIM). I offer these opinions below, with the hope that people will read the reports for themselves and follow their conscience as the Lord directs.

First, a note of appreciation. The men on the committee have served the PCA through many long hours and over difficult subjects. They all deserve our sincere thanks.

In reading the reports, a main concern I had was clarity. The SCIM was tasked to help the PCA navigate the often-tricky waters of cross-cultural missions. Thus, clear definitions, descriptions, and conclusions are vital to help the reader make necessary distinctions.

The Majority, or Committee Report (CR), does exactly that: the language is specific and precise, and reaches clear conclusions the reader can either accept or reject.

The language of the Minority Report (MR), though, is very different. It is open and vague, and often does not make distinctions between different views. It asks questions without offering answers. That kind of language has its place, but not for a Study Committee report intended to offer guidance to our churches. Ambiguity allows for multiple, even contradictory, interpretations—and thus it would not be clear what the PCA is actually commending. Some examples may help.

1. The Minority Report does not clearly describe Insider Movements.

The Minority Report begins with the assumption that readers understand there is a “spectrum of practice advocated under the broad banner of IM” (2300). That may be so, but the report does not clearly describe what that banner looks like, and whether it is a banner we should serve under. That distinction is one of kind, not simply of degree.

The debate surrounding IM is sometimes seen as a difference of opinion over the degree of missions contextualization. But that would be a misrepresentation of Insider Movements, according to its own advocates. IM introduces a new kind of paradigm. In the words of Rebecca Lewis of Frontiers, the largest missions agency to Muslims and a leading proponent of this direction, Insider Movements“can take place within any socio-religious context, Western or not (such as Russian Orthodox, Mormon, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Chinese Communist, etc.), as long as believers remain inside their families, networks and communities, retaining the socio-religious identity of that group.”[1]

In other words, IM takes place within Islam. John Travis, an advocate of this approach, developed the “C-Scale” to distinguish degrees of contextualization of “Christ-centered communities” (C1-C4) within Christianity and C5, which is expressly placed within the sphere of Islam.[2]

That is an entirely new kind of paradigm, and one that runs counter to two millennia of Christian mission. But the Minority Report does not make this distinction clear.

2. The Minority Report does not offer a clear conclusion about Insider Movements.

The Minority Report raises many questions, but often leaves them unanswered. For example, the MR says, “we must ask what constitutes appropriate use of the Insider Movement Paradigm?” but does not offer an answer (2300). Without definitive statements, it is not clear what the report actually concludes regarding Insider Movements, and what elements it deems appropriate.

3. The Minority Report does not clearly describe “society.”

An important example of the need for clarity is the repeated use of the word “society,” which is used in each of the six “Realities on the Ground.” But what is meant by a “Muslim society”? Does society mean “the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations” (per the first definition in the dictionary)? If so, then in Muslim majority countries like Egypt, Bangladesh, Turkey and many other places, Muslim Background Believers (MBBs) will certainly need to “live biblically within a Muslim society” (2302). That reality has been true for centuries, and does not require a study committee report.

Or does the MR’s use of society mean (per the dictionary’s second usage) “an organization formed for a particular purpose or activity,” such as a mosque? That usage is part of the Insider Movement paradigm. If that is the MR’s meaning, does the PCA want to affirm as normative MBBs living within the society of a mosque? I think not.

The point is that words can have multiple meanings, even within the same document. Thus, it is imperative that a study committee report use precise language and define its terms, so that it is not open to contradictory interpretations. The language of the Minority Report, however, is ambiguous, thus allowing multiple interpretations.

4. The Minority Report does not clearly distinguish between Muslim Background Believers (MBBs) who are identified as Christians and those who are Insiders.

Another example of the need for clarity is the report’s usage of “MBBs.” In the last forty years, unprecedented numbers of Muslims have come to faith in Christ. God is indeed doing a remarkable thing in our lifetimes, which is to be celebrated and supported. Like any believer, these MBBs will understandably experience varying times of discipleship and transition, from their old ways and identities to new ones. And indeed, the degree of contextualization of their Christian fellowship will look different—just as do churches in our own denomination. The Committee Report is sympathetic to those realities.

In seeking to help us appreciate the challenges facing MBBS, however, the Minority Report makes no distinction between MBBs who now identify themselves as Christians and members of a church, and Insiders who remain within Islam. It is hard to know if a distinction is even being made. On page 2310, for example, the MR says, “MBBs in Christ who remain connected to family and friends will struggle with important questions regarding how to avoid syncretism and remain faithful to Christ.” It then offers examples, such as whether MBBs should fast during Ramadan or use the Qur’an to point to Christ—yet leaves these questions unanswered. But does “MBB” refer to believers who identify as Christians or to Insiders, or both? The report is not clear, and thus we do not know what we are being asked to affirm.

5. The Minority Report does not clearly address the exegesis of Insider Movements.

The SCIM was tasked, in part, to offer “a biblical response to interpretations of Scripture used in defense of Insider Movements” (2107). The Committee Report does exactly that: it considers key passages, such as the Council of Acts 15, that are commonly used to defend Insider Movements. It quotes from Insider advocates and responds to their exegesis. The CR then concludes, “It is therefore mistaken to understand the Council primarily in terms of the retention or exchange of social and religious identity” (2196).

Although the Minority Report does consider certain passages of Scripture, it does not mention the exegesis of Insider Movement advocates. The conclusions it draws from a passage are broad enough to be interpreted as supportive of the Insider Movement paradigm—or not. For example, its section on Acts 15 concludes by offering general principles, e.g. “When people believe the gospel, those same people are encouraged to continue living faithfully within their culture” (2325). But what does this mean? Does “people” include Insiders? Does “culture” refer to a socio-religious context? If so, does the PCA want to encourage Insiders to remain within Islam? The need for clarity is particularly evident here.

Conclusion

Should the General Assembly vote to receive the Minority Report, it would not be clear what we are actually recommending to our churches. In fact, the message would be inherently contradictory. The Minority Report is offered as a supplement to the Committee Report, affirming that “the majority has already done significant, able work with which we agree” (2297). Yet, the Committee Report explicitly does not agree with the findings of the MR, particularly in its “discussion of identity, its discussion of the church, and its exegesis of Scripture” (2132). It would thus be a logical contradiction to approve the Minority Report. The need of the hour is clarity, and for that, I recommend the PCA affirm the Committee Report alone.

Scott Seaton is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. Prior to planting Emmanuel Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Arlington, VA, Scott oversaw the PCA’s ministry to Muslims and served as a missions pastor at a PCA church.

[1] Rebecca Lewis, “Promoting Movements to Christ Within Natural Communities,” International Journal of Frontier Missions, Summer 2007. Emphasis added.

[2] John Travis, “The C1 to C6 Spectrum,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34:4, (1998): 407-408.